Considering 99% of the critiques involving Anita are quite bad, it's easy to assume what someone has seen. There's also very little reason to go hard critiquing her, she offers a pretty milquetoast feminist critique with some occasional mistakes. There's not much to get from her content, other than that Youtube anti-feminist ad revenue.
To be honest, in the case of a short 10 minute video, there is no need to watch a critique, you can just watch her video and gauge her points.
I think you previously brought up the Hitman example, from what I have seen that's a really popular criticism of something she said 3+ years ago. Most people seem to think she's improved since then anyways.
Although, I guess I should probably watch the Innuendo Studios videos.
I wouldn't even necessarily call what I've seen "critiques". More
objective evaluations of the material she presents. As in, not opinions, just comparing the examples she invokes, with reality.
Is it really fair to say that anything she said in the past should have absolutely no influence on how anybody feels about the validity of her opinion? How many mistakes can a speaker make before them speaking becomes superfluous? What I gauge from this sort of sentiment is that, if she was wrong, then she made a mistake and everyone makes mistakes, and/or it's been a while since she was wrong so maybe she knows better now. You can basically excuse anything with that kind of coverage.
I don't find either of these to be very convincing arguments about how she thinks or feels about a thing. I base my idea of how she feels based on her actual content, and that's exactly where my opinions on
her opinions come from. Please don't assume that I've come to any rushed conclusions based only on videos purely meant to degrade or attack feminism, and/or be troll-ish and inflammatory.
IMO, she is not the hero feminism needs in the video game industry. She's not open to dialogue, and therefore alienates those she should be attempting to convince.
That being said, Anita cannot really be relevant to the discussion of a "solution" towards fixing "sexual objectification", since she herself offers no solution and so there's nothing really to discuss other than the validity of her perspective on the games she criticizes. Any solution that can assumed from her criticisms (like, do the reverse of what she criticizes) doesn't really hold up because the reality is much more complicated, and the answers are not black and white.
For example, me. I don't have an issue with sexy ladies in games. I also don't have an issue with sexy ladies in games that other women may have a problem with, such as Quiet. Therefore it's unlikely my spending habits will change, and I will continue to purchase games that could potentially have characters like Quiet, and thus, I become the natural enemy of those who want to "fight" objectification in video games, but it's only because I don't see it as objectification, rather, I disagree with their perspective. Short of special sector of video games developed solely for females, I'm just not sure how their goals are to be achieved. I stand by women against sexism, but once you bring the "in video games" modifier in to it, things just get way too muddy an inconsequential for my taste.
This could also lead in to a presumed criticism of my character. Maybe I'm a misogynist on the inside. However, if I make it all the way through life, treating everyone around me with respect, my wife, women around, all the way until I die without involving myself in one situation that could define me as one...does it
really matter that I like a little sexy lady-stuff in games? Does it really even matter at that point if I'm unknowingly sexist by those definitions? I'm inclined to think...that it doesn't. I know how people should be treated, and I treat them that way, my inherent thoughts influenced by media are irrelevant.
